Mayor Fuller sent this memo to the City Council today, informing them of her decision to “not forward the City Council’s request to submit a home rule petition to the General Court with the amendments to the City Charter as voted by the Council on May 6, 2019 in Docket #7 6-19. Most of these amendments were originally proposed by the Charter Commission including the provision which the Mayor most adamantly opposed: “the inclusion by the subcommittee of a provision
regarding the hiring of outside legal counsel directly by the City Council.”
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Hmmmh.
So at the time Mayor Fuller was advocating for charter reform, but now she is in office she rejects was she supported.
Mayor Warren also rejected a home rule petition even though he was leaving office.
I think the difference here is that the not a single councilor opposed the idea of being able to hire their own council, and they were united in the decision to move the home rule petition.
@Simon: You’re confusing the petitions, perhaps intentionally. Both Warren and Fuller supported the Charter Commission proposal but the item Warren declined to sign was an 8/8 proposal, not the commission’s proposal.
While I understand the reasoning that Mayor Fuller has provided for her decision, I must respectfully disagree.
While the Newton Law Department ably serves all the City, the City Solicitor is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Mayor, just as the Attorney General of the United States is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the President. While the Justice Department represents the United States, recent events make clear that in a conflict between the national Executive and Legislative branches, the Justice Department need not act independently of the President. While not likely for the current Newton Law Department or this Mayor, a similar institutional risk exists at the municipal level.
Also, the Newton City Council often has major ordinances to review, such as a wholesale re-write of our ordinances controlling land use and development. Just like in medicine, a second opinion on such important matters may be beneficial.
For such rare situations, the former Charter Commission, and now the City Council, recommended a new Charter provision to provide modest funding for legal advice for the Council at 2 per cent of the Law Department budget, likely about $40,000 a year, beginning in July of 2020. Out of respect for the Mayor’s views, the City Council considered an amendment to remove this proposed Charter provision, which failed 22-0, with two absent.
Ironically, by rejecting this Charter provision about counsel to the Council, the Mayor has provided an example of a difference of opinion between the Executive and Legislative that such independent legal advice might help resolve in other contexts, while also discarding almost three and one-half years of work by the former Charter Commission and the City Council on many other Charter provisions to improve the framework of Newton City Government.
While I much admire Mayor Fuller’s work in general, in this case I believe she has erred, and I hope she might, on reflection, reconsider her decision and let the Charter amendments go forward to the General Court as a Home Rule Petition to amend Newton’s current Charter, as recommended by a unanimous Newton City Council. I am confident that if this issue of legal advice to the Council is resolved, the other minor matters in the proposed Charter amendments to which she refers can be successfully addressed.
Councilor Lisle Baker, Chair, Charter Subcommittee, Newton City Council
@Greg
I simply find it interesting. Does holding the position of the Mayor Newton, or maybe any other Mayor give some kind of insight into knowing what is best for the community they are supposed to serve above all others? In the run up to the election mayor Fuller would often argue that we have way too many eccentric councilors with egos , making it impossible for them to agree. Well here we have it. A united council, and a mayor knowing better. Better than the charter commission, and thinking on it, all the people who said yes to the charter.
So we live with what we have. It’s dated and has its problems, but it’s better than the city council changing the composition of the council to 8-8 and it’s better than having the executive branch unilaterally forcing changes to the revised charter.
A lot of people put a lot of effort into trying to rewrite the charter to no avail. It’s time to move on to other issues. Much as I feel badly for Councilor Baker who into this, I feel worse for Josh Krintzman who served on the charter commission and the charter committee.
Mayor Fuller stated clearly she would veto the Charter
revisions. The existing Charter does provide for the city council
to seek legal guidance outside the city legal department.
The Charter committee drew up too many revisions. The State
legislature would not have wanted to tackle so many revisions, especially after the Newton electorate voted down a new Charter.
Mayor Fuller did not err in her decision.
Even if readers agree with the Mayor, it is important to understand that the existing Charter allows the Council to establish staff positions by ordinance but does not provide a way of funding them outside of an appropriation request by the Mayor. Also, the updates to the Charter were worked over carefully by both the former Charter Commission and the City Council. Charter changes like these are routinely approved by the legislature for Newton and other municipalities so long as both the local legislative and executive agree to request them under a Home Rule Petition for a special act to do so.
Councilor Lisle Baker, Chair, Council Charter Subcommittee.
Thank you Lisle for your explanation. However, you make this process sound simple when it is not.
As a voter who followed the Charter Commission process closely,
I was very surprised that the commissioners failed to reach a compromise regarding Ward councilors. This alone led to the Charter revision defeat. For the Charter subcommittee to attempt
a back door tactic to implement the revisions was a slap in the face to Newton voters.
My apologies for not being clear. This set of revisions did not include former Charter Commission recommendations like Mayoral or Council term limits, adjusting processes for neighborhood area councils, or changing the composition of the City Council itself, all of which would be unchanged from the current Charter. – LB
I forgot to mention that the Charter Subcommittee included not only Councilor Krintzman, former Chair of the Charter Commission and Councilor Albright, both of whom supported the Charter Commission’s recommendations to the voters, but also Councilor Kalis and me, who opposed them in the 2017 election. The Charter amendments we recommended to the Council, and the Council to the Mayor, had support from Charter opponents as well as opponents on the Council and resulted in a unanimous vote, something rare in my experience on such matters. – LB
As a point of information, the poster who claimed to follow the charter commission closely process never attended a meeting.
The city has spent countless hours over a three year period on efforts to revise the charter but it’s proven to be difficult to complete the process for a variety of reasons. I speak as one of the people who put hundreds of hours on the charter review – it’s time to move on and address other pressing issues facing the city.
I did attend meetings but I also followed the minutes of the
meetings.
My point is that the Charter went through a process of revision.
The commissioners in their recommendations failed to provide
the voters with a plan of action which they could approve.
After the Charter failed it appeared that the commissioners acted
too late to include additional revisions.
The idea of additional revisions targeted for the State legislators
simply was misguided. Newton voters deserve the chance to vote
directly on their Charter.
“Charter allows the Council to establish staff positions by ordinance but does not provide a way of funding them outside of an appropriation request by the Mayor.”
So does this mean the changes the Mayor vetoed would not allow the Council to hire outside lawyers or other staff that would be paid for with City taxes, but if Councils wanted to pay for outside lawyers or other staff with their own money they could? Why should residents want to pay for more lawyers?
Jonathan Yeo stated back in January at a Charter Sub-Committee meeting that Mayor Fuller was against this measure being put in the revised City Charter. The Charter Sub-Committee put in a lot of work for this revised Charter. It’s unfortunate that the City Council and the Mayor disagreed on this. By the way, these revisions were supposed to be the non-controversial issues.
Going forward, if the City Council approves the 8-8, will Mayor Fuller sign-off on it, or will she use the “veto”? Time will tell…
It would be unusual in my experience to expect public officials to pay for public counsel any more than they would be expected to fund other Council staff, like the clerks that help the Council do its work. Remember that the Charter Commission recommended very limited funding -2 per cent – compared to the Law Department budget of almost $2 million. The premise behind the Charter Commission recommending this provision for funding counsel to the Council is that if needed, such as in the unusual circumstances I described above, guaranteeing this funding would add value for the quality of Newton government and the quality of work of the City Council, just as the Massachusetts legislature has independent legal advice in addition to that provided by the Attorney General. – LB
Councilor Baker: Thanks very much for making the time to engage in this conversation.
I agree with Councilor Baker.